So What?
As we approach Holy Week, we are aware
of the power of violence regardless of the scale, from domestic conflicts
to international wars. From the school bully to the boorish tyrant we are
reminded that violence is a poison. Our contemporary problem is that violence
is seen as the remedy to violence. It is both poison and remedy (pharmakon
and pharmakos). The simple logic we use with our children when we raise our
voices or our hands is applied on a grand scale in our modern world. I am
bigger than you, I can beat you up, I can hurt you. Therefore you must refrain
from violence.
To preach the cross of the Son of Man is to reject this way of thinking. This
is the satanic way, the way judged in the cross of Jesus. The death of Jesus
did not solve any problems for the religious authorities. In a scant thirty
years they would find their authority crushed by the Romans. What the death
of Jesus did do was produce a movement that would learn to live together.
And for all of their disagreements, they would learn to love one another and
care for one another and in many cases, be exiled or executed for their faith
in this anti-god (remember that the most leveled charge against the early
Christians was that they were atheists).
The world can no longer afford for the Church to hide the Gospel under a bushel.
The gospels are encouraging us all of the time to reconsider what it is we
think we have learned about Jesus and his God. May God show us mercy when
we say things about him that may well be true of all the other gods but are
not true to His revelation in Jesus.
2006:
From our perspective it is really simple:
we are either interpreting the text sacrificially or we are interpreting it
non-sacrificially. It doesn’t matter whether we are conservative, liberal,
left, right or center, RC, Nazarene, Lutheran, Anglican or anything else.
We either read the biblical text ‘from below’ or ‘from above.’
We either join the mad chorus of victimage and announce the wrath of God or
we join the victim and announce the salvation of God.
It’s all about what you interpret,
how you interpret it, why you interpret it, where you interpret it and when
you interpret it. We pray that the Trinitarian discussions of the twentieth
century will pay off in christological conversations in the twenty-first century
mirroring the fourth and fifth centuries of the early church.
Anthropological Reading
Jesus as the rejected and crucified Son
of Man has popped up again and again in our lectionary readings, from Advent
through Lent and of course, on through Holy Week when we ‘celebrate’
the death and resurrection of Jesus. The death of Jesus is not a theme imposed
upon the text. It permeates the text and is the hermeneutic by which the text
gives itself to be understood. We cannot emphasize this enough.
It is commonplace to read the gospels
through the same royal ideology with which we regard the gods of mythology.
In this view, Jesus is no more than a god stretched to the “Nth”
value. Jesus is stronger, mightier, more powerful and demonstrates that power
as Judge, Jury and Executioner at the eschaton. Therefore, we must live in
fear and have a healthy respect for the moral judgments of this God.
The gospels do not move in this direction.
The first thing the gospels do is point us to a dying and forgiving Jesus.
He is the one who announces the character of the Creator, a character so different
from the gods of religion. This abba abounds in love, overflows with joy for
his children and gives them all good gifts. This God, the maker of heaven
and earth is, for Jesus, the wonderful life giving God. Sin, death and the
devil are only his business in relation to his redemptive work on our behalf.
In him there is no shadow of turning, in him there is no darkness at all.
In short, God does not have a shadow side.
With apologies to our Calvinist friends,
we question any notion that separates the revelation of the Father from the
person of Jesus (as in the so-called extra Calvinisticum). We also note the
problem of Luther’s ‘deus absconditus (hidden God). This is the
derived Platonic god that has haunted Christianity from the second century.
[An issue that faced Luther and Calvin
was the looming authority of Augustine and his doctrine of election. No matter
which way you slice it, the dualism that has permeated this doctrine and its
influence has created havoc for the Reformers and their heirs, indeed all
in the West. Little wonder that our God feels, looks and acts just like all
the other gods.]
While there is certainly mystery and wonder in the Creator abba, there are
no secrets, no hidden agendas. Everything is revealed. And what is revealed?
That our God can kick the you know what out of the other gods, as in the story
of Elijah and the priests of Ba’al? If that is the God that Jesus reveals,
then why did Jesus not call down legions of angels at his arrest? If this
is so, why did God not deliver Jesus from the clutches of the angry mob and
their rulers? If this is so, then why, when God raised Jesus from the dead,
did Jesus not come back and smite his enemies? Why in the world would he appear
to his disciples announcing “Peace’, the very message he announced
before he died? No, this retaliatory god is not the abba of Jesus, nor the
God in whom we believe.
Some might say “Jesus’ role
as judge won’t come until the End.” But if Jesus is ‘the
same yesterday, today and forever,’ at what point will we finally realize
that this “Judge Jesus” is as two faced as Janus? When will we
discern that all of our christological and theological problems occur when
we insist on seeing Jesus through the lens of the gods of religion rather
than seeing the gods of religion and their violence exposed in the cross?
What are we being shown in the gospel?
We are shown our own propensity for mimetic conflict and its resolution through
scapegoating violence, and God’s transformation of this mechanism for
our salvation. Some may object and say that this does not speak to their situation.
They’re not violent, they were not there when Jesus died. These folks
believe that they would never have harmed Jesus, they would have listened
and obeyed. But the proof in the pudding is in the fact that we continue to
treat others just like we would treat Jesus. We all have our scapegoats; people
we would prefer to see removed from the planet. We have all tasted hate.
This Son of Man who is exalted is for
us the preeminent sign of the glory of God. But users of this website are
unlikely to be able to identify with him as the victim, without first seeing
themselves and their own mimetic tendencies in the mob and in the rulers.
(Those who can reasonably see themselves in the victim probably don’t
have internet access.) As we have pointed out previously, this way of reading
the gospels has been aptly described as a ‘repentant reading.’
(Hamerton-Kelly, The Gospel and the Sacred). Using this hermeneutical insight
in tandem with Bonhoeffer’s “view from below,” we came away
with a hermeneutic in which human suffering plays as important a role as any
‘historical-critical’ insight.
Historical/Cultural
Today we call upon three authors for
their insights into our text.
Is today’s text a bit like the
Gethsemane story of the Synoptics? Raymond Brown offers additional evidence
for the historical credibility of the Fourth Gospel. Regarding this text Brown
says, “We need not jump to the conclusion that John presents us with
a dismembered form of the Synoptic agony scene. It is quite probable that
Jesus underwent an experience of agony in the face of death as described in
the Synoptic scene, for this is not the type of incident the primitive Church
would invent about its glorified master. Yet, since there were no witnesses
to report the prayer of Jesus during the agony (the disciples were asleep
at a distance), the tendency would be to fill in the skeletal framework of
the Gethsemane scene with prayers and sayings uttered by Jesus at other times.
Therefore, the Johannine picture where such prayers and sayings are scattered
may actually be closer to the original situation than the more organized Synoptic
scene.” (Brown, The Gospel according to John)
Our point in citing Brown is two-fold.
First we believe that the Synoptic tradition is shaped by the apocalyptic
orientation of the early Church. Kasemann suggests that ‘apocalyptic
is the mother of early Christianity,” and we are inclined to agree (New
Testament Questions for Today) But, Jesus was not the apocalyptist that scholarship
of the last 100 years has tried to make him out to be. Apocalyptic is language
that Jesus employs, but he uses it as a meta-map and is constantly out of
step with what the general populace and the ruling authorities believe regarding
apocalyptic events. Therefore, the Johannine portrait of Jesus shares much
with those portraits of Jesus that debunk the ‘apocalyptic Jesus’,
e.g., Marcus Borg’s Jesus: A New Vision or Raymund Schwager’s
Jesus Of Nazareth: How He Understood His Life. Neither of these authors use
the Johannine Gospel as they both write within the bounds of the modern critical
consensus that only the Synoptics may be used to discern the historical Jesus.
Given this, it is all the more important to note the conjunction between the
portrait of Jesus in John and some contemporary work on Jesus, for as we have
observed all along, both John and Mark share the same core perspective.
We do not often reflect on the experience
of Jesus’ rejection and suffering. It will always be difficult to understand
Jesus’ ‘agony’ as long as we continue reading the gospel
from the perspective of the one that persecutes, the one who lashes out. Brown’s
observation that Jesus had a ‘real experience of agony’ makes
simple sense. Anyone who has undergone tremendous loss knows the soul-searching
questions that are asked during this time of crisis. Jesus’ response
here and in the Synoptics, even if heavily edited and mediated through layers
of tradition, indicates a real person struggling with real issues and questions.
With regard to the prayer itself, we
turn to B.F. Westcott: “If then the words be taken as a prayer for deliverance
it is important to notice the exact form in which it is expressed. The petition
is for deliverance out of and not for deliverance from the crisis of trial.
So that the sense appears to be ‘bring me safely out of the conflict’
(Heb 5:7), and not simply ‘keep me from entering into it.’ Thus
the words are the true answer to the preceding question. ‘In whatever
way it may be thy will to try me, save me out of the deep of affliction.’
There is complete trust even in the depth of sorrow. (St. John).
Finally, we quote F.F. Bruce with gratitude
for his insight:
“In its final reaction to
him, the world would pass judgment on itself and reveal its true character:
who then would stand for him and who would be against him? But the world’s
judgment on Jesus, directed by the sinister spirit-ruler (archon) of the
present order, would be overruled in a higher court; that spirit-ruler
himself would be dislodged, for universal authority and judgment have
been vested by the Father in the Son (John 3:35; 5:19-29), and the present
order is about to be replaced by the eternal dominion of life and truth
(17:2; 18:37f). It is from the cross of Jesus that the true light shines
brightest; men declare themselves to be sons of light or sons of darkness
according as they come to that light or avoid it, and this is the ‘krisis’
(cf. 3:19-21, 12:45F). The ‘archon’ of this world is the adversary
of the Son, but finds no accusation to bring against him (cf. 14:30).
He is the adversary also of those who believe in the Son, but against
his accusations they are to receive the powerful aid of the Paraclete,
whose presence will be to them the evidence that ‘the ruler of this
world has been judged’ (16:11). That ruler’s dethronement,
then is effected by the death and resurrection of the Son and confirmed
by the coming of the Spirit.” (The Gospel of John)
Either this page has not yet been completed, or we have not found any significant textual issues in the lectionary texts for this Sunday.
Introductory Articles
We will add articles as we are able,
or as users of the site request them, so if you have suggestions for additional
pieces, please write to us!
"Introduction
to Mimetic Theory"
"Mimesis"
"The
Scapegoat"
"The
Pillars of Culture"
"Jesus"
"The
Four Gospels"
A Brief Introduction
to Luke
What's New: (Hover your mouse over to pause cycling)
Jer 31:31-34
Ps 51:1-12 or Ps 119:9-16
Heb 5:5-10
Jn 12:20-33
(Jeremiah 31:31-34)
The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant
that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt--a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband,
says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and
I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be
my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, "Know
the LORD," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the
greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their
sin no more.
(Hebrews 5:5-10)
So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming a high priest, but was
appointed by the one who said to him, "You are my Son, today I have begotten
you"; as he says also in another place, "You are a priest forever,
according to the order of Melchizedek." In the days of his flesh, Jesus
offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one
who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent
submission. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;
and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for
all who obey him, having been designated by God a high priest according to
the order of Melchizedek.
(John 12:20-33)
Now among those who went up to worship at the festival were some Greeks. They
came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, "Sir,
we wish to see Jesus." Philip went and told Andrew; then Andrew and Philip
went and told Jesus. Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the
Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat
falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies,
it bears much fruit. Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate
their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me
must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also. Whoever serves
me, the Father will honor. "Now my soul is troubled. And what should
I say--'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it is for this reason that I
have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came
from heaven, "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again."
The crowd standing there heard it and said that it was thunder. Others said,
"An angel has spoken to him." Jesus answered, "This voice has
come for your sake, not for mine. Now is the judgment of this world; now the
ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the
earth, will draw all people to myself." He said this to indicate the
kind of death he was to die.
New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division
of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in
the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Occasional Articles
As with the Introductory Articles, we
will add other articles as time permits or as our readers request. If you
have a suggestion for anything, please let us know.
Michael Hardin
Is the Apocalypse Inevitable?: Native American Prophecy and the Mimetic Theory presented to the Colloquium on Violence and Religion 2008
Michael's Essay for a Celebration Volume honoring Rene Girard
Michael's Response to Willard Swartley's Covenent of Peace at the November Colloquium and Violence Meeting
Does
Peace Make A Difference? - Michael's essay in response to Rick
Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan (which somehow never mentions peace).
An Analysis of Rick Warren - Michael's response to "The Purpose Driven Life."
"The
God of Pat Robertson" - a response to Pat Robertson's words
to the people of Dover, PA.
"A
response to Charles Stanley's "A Nation at War"
"Must
God be violent? A Diagnosis and Prescription for Modern Christianity"
The
Scapegoat: Christologies in Conflict - A Study in Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Biblical
Testaments as a Marriage of Convenience: Rene Girard and Biblical Interpretation
Finding
Our Way Home: A Brief Note On The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture
"Does
The Passion of the Christ Preach the Gospel?"
A
sermon for the holiday devoted to Dr. Martin Luther King. (requires
Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
GRASPING
GOD: Philippians 2: 1-11 in the Light of Mimetic Theory
Rene Girard and the Recovery of Early Christian Perspectives (Brethren Life and Thought)
The Dynamics of Violence and the Imitation of Christ in Maximus Confessor (St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly)
"EcoSpirituality"
Or What Happens When You Sit Down With A French Literary Critic
Jeff Krantz
Mighty
One or Crucified Messiah? Competing Christologies and the Chiastic
Structure of Mark's Gospel
There's
No Such Thing as the Rapture - A sermon preached at the Church
of the Advent, Westbury (requires Acrobat Reader)
Holy
Scripture and the Consecration of Gene Robinson - a response
to the request of the Windsor Report for a Scriptural rationale. (requires
Adobe's Acrobat Reader)
Worship - The Redemption of Desire by Jeff Krantz
Myth
and Film - a piece written for the City of Angels Film Festival
The Stations of the Cross - Rewritten by Jeff Krantz
A Dramatic Presentation of the Stations of the Cross for Youth by Barb Fabijan-Waddell
Escaping
the Power of "My" - A NonViolent Approach to Stewardship
Preaching
Peace in Hollywood: The Theologies of Terminator, Lord of the Rings, and the
Matrix
V
for Vendetta - The Name Says It All A review of the movie.
Essays, Sermons and Liturgical Pieces by Friends of Preaching Peace
"Jesus and the Gibeonites: Reading the Bible from the Perspective of the Hidden Victim" by James Warren.
Mark Heim's "No More of This" - A hymn on Nonviolent Atonement
Kate Layzer's "No More of This" - A hymn on Nonviolent Atonement (and inspiration for Mark Heim's hymn!)
Alan Cork, "Transformation" in L'Arche: A Mimetic Account presented to the Colloquium on Violence and Religion 2008
"The Wisdom of God's Peace" a sermon by Jim Amstutz, co-pastor of Michael's church.
Girard's Christology - Per Bjornar Grande
Violence, Anarchy and Scripture: Jacques Ellul and Rene Girard - Matthew Patillo
Comparing
Plato's Understanding of Mimesis to Girard's - Per Bjorner Grande
C. Frank Terhune, an Easter Sermon: "God's Big But" (no kidding!)
Gerald Biesecker-Mast's paper from Theologia Pacis on Pacifist Gospel Epstimology.
An essay by the Rev. John Hill on Mimetic Theory and Catechesis
